English
Because on the path of seeing, there is pervasive clinging to purity, it is unacceptable. If it is said that clinging to the path of seeing contradicts reality, how can this be avoided? Some say that using the reasoning of five entities, it is sometimes said that Vajrapani has five ornaments, which is also unreasonable. Even so, does Vajrapani have clinging or not? If it is like the first case, in the vehicle of cause, it is said to be the master of the ten bhumis, and in the tantras, it is said to be the father of all Buddhas, which contradicts the fact that there is still no clinging. If setting up a sign of reasoning for the absence of clinging itself is meaningless, it is because the self-character is not obscured by the totally imputed. My guru Rog said that the four kayas' retinue has no self-sustaining clinging. In that case, because there is no object to be measured, the reasoning becomes a meaningless fault. In response, is it said that the previous arising is a meaningless fault? Or is it said that the subsequent arising is a meaningless fault? The first is accepted. If it is like the second case, even if the previous arising is meaningless, it becomes meaningful because it is determined by showing that there is clinging for the sake of the retinue that opens up enlightenment in the subsequent arising. What is this? Saying that the pervasion is not established is not well understood. If it is like the first case, it is impossible for the continuum above the path of seeing to have clinging and conceptualization, because the reasoning is meaningless. It cannot be accepted because it is clear that the object of clinging of the antidote to good conceptualization is the obscuration of knowledge. Wherever there is not even a little clinging, the measurer is meaningless, just like the Buddha. In the second case, if it is like the subsequent arising, for those who abide in the pure continuum of the previous arising, showing that there is clinging will not become the meaning of the subsequent arising, because it cannot prevent the wrong conceptualization that requires endless clinging. The self-system admits that the teacher's four kayas' retinue also has subtle clinging. If it is not like that, it is meaningless to do the five kayas' retinue. If there is, how is it? In general, the root of clinging, the knowable, is to label the reality of suchness with good and bad by the defilement of consciousness, just like it is said: 'This is also the basis of total imputation, all that appears to the senses in the environment, does not exist in the environment, it is just the appearance of the alaya consciousness, appearing as various things, causing clinging to samsara and nirvana.' That's it. Among them, the worse division
Chinese
如同粗细二者次第一样，以见修断除，恒常依赖对治，细微至极的善分别的所知障，最终在道上也有，因为还要安住于等性中。 如是所说： “为了摧毁不顺品之相， 以金刚喻定， 摧毁我执诸相后， 授予等持智慧之灌顶， 以成办义利之愿力。” 如果不是那样的障碍的执着显现，那么生起金刚喻定就变得无意义了，因为没有所断之故。 如果承认，则与经文相违，如是所说： “经部，十地相续的最后，在菩提树下成佛时， 贪嗔痴， 以及其他种种垢染， 您的智慧之火焚烧殆尽。” 并且从此也摧毁了道次第的习气。 如是所说。 无论何处，对于无事而言，对治都是无意义的，如同白天的灯火一样，这是以理智所说。 如此一来，生起见道也变得无意义了，因为仍然有执着显现的缘故。 是说还有粗大的执着，还是说只有细微的执着？ 如果是前者，则不承认这个论点。 如果是后者，则周遍不成立，因为在没有现证佛陀智慧之前，有细微的执着和障碍，所以说“过去的执着显现”也只是从某些方面进行考察而已。 再次，对于五种实事的理由，在后来的运用上是有还是没有呢？如果是前者，那么道次第中有四种不运用，一种运用，这与不运用相违。 如果是后者，那么道次第的术语也显示了后来的运用。 “如烧、割、磨的金子一样， 以五种事物善加观察后降伏。” 这样说来，如何调和说可以运用呢？ 回答说，对于根器迟钝者来说，是不能运用的，因为没有成为言语的境地。 如是所说： “道次第不能以词句和文字来表达。” 对于根器敏锐者来说，是可以运用的，因为不依赖言语也能证悟意义，成为证悟意义的方法。 如是所说： “道次第如同言语一样进行表达， 因为是自性的解说， 对于未来的意义是确定的理由。”
English
Just as the coarse and subtle are sequential, abandon them through seeing and meditating, and constantly rely on antidotes. The extremely subtle obscurations of knowledge, which are good discriminations, still exist on the path, because one must still abide in equanimity. As it is said: "In order to destroy the signs of unfavorable conditions, With the Vajra-like Samadhi, Having destroyed all the signs of self-grasping, Bestow the empowerment of equanimous wisdom, Through the power of the aspiration to accomplish the meaning." If it were not for the clinging appearances of those obscurations, then the arising of Vajra-like Samadhi would be meaningless, because there would be nothing to abandon. If you assert that, it contradicts the clear words of scripture, as it is said: "In the Sutra, at the end of the ten grounds, when seated at the Vajra Throne at the heart of enlightenment, Attachment, hatred, and delusion, And also many other stains, Are burned by the fire of your wisdom." And also, from this itself, it destroys the latent tendencies of the stages of the path. As it is said. Wherever there is nothing to be done, the antidote is meaningless, like a lamp during the day, which is said with reason. In that case, the arising of the path of seeing would also be meaningless, since there is still clinging appearance. Are you saying that there is still coarse clinging, or are you saying that there is only subtle clinging? The first reason is not accepted. According to the second, the pervasion is not established, because as long as the wisdom of the Buddha has not been realized, there is subtle clinging and obscuration, so saying "past clinging appearance" is only examined from some aspects. Furthermore, regarding the five realities as reasons, are they used in subsequent application or not? According to the first, in the stages of the path, four are not used subsequently, and one is used subsequently, which contradicts not using them. According to the second, the terminology of the stages of the path also shows subsequent application. "Like gold that is burned, cut, and polished, Examine well with the five realities and then subdue." How then can you reconcile the statement that they can be used? The answer is that for those with dull faculties, they cannot be used, because they have not become the object of words. As it is said: "The stages of the path cannot be expressed by words and letters." For those with sharp faculties, they can be used, because without relying on words, they become a method for realizing the meaning. As it is said: "The stages of the path are expressed like words, Because they are explanations of the essence, For the future meaning, the reason is certain."
Chinese
引入的理路是方式和词两种。它们之间的差别是：有些外道说，虽然不是五身本身，但与五身的方式相符而能理解意义的，是方式的理路；以词作为理解的标志的，是词的理路。但达基·如若说，将先前出现的确定为方式的理解是方式的理路，将其表达为词句是词的理路。第二，方式的理路有五种：与法身的语言相符的是无生义的因，如无生性或虚空；与圆满报身的语言方式相符的是自明现的因，如无分别自明的光明精华；与报身的语言方式相符的是意义符号的因，如揭示遮蔽的镜中影像；与金刚身的语言相符的是无二金刚的因，如声空无二的岩石；与化身的语言方式相符的是表达词语的因，能使一切信服，如梵天的妙音。这些因通过这些因，对于那些根器极佳者，能以显现声响本身来象征，从而确定为五身的方式。如是说：对于具备次第证悟的智者们，各种事物、心、秘密咒语，因为是比喻和教证，所以显示佛法的方式，像表达一样地传达，因为是自性的宣说，所以在未来的意义上确定理路。如是。区分和归纳词的理路。第一是先前的方式五种本身，以词语如实表达的五种。如果归纳，则分为不可使用的理解四身的因，和可以使用的理解化身的因两种。这二者的差别是，因为没有直接用词语说出，所以是不可使用的；直接用词语表达的，是可以使用的。我的上师如是说。但我认为，直接指出意义的是不可使用的，通过意义的传承来指出的是可以使用的，因此追随其他智者的意愿，很好地思考。如是说：虽然如此，如果归纳则为二，四种不使用，一种使用，两种方式都能实现意义，
English
The logic of introduction is twofold: manner and word. The difference between them is: Some outsiders say that although not the five kayas themselves, understanding the meaning in accordance with the manner of the five kayas is the logic of manner; that which becomes a sign of understanding through words is the logic of words. However, Dakini Ru Rog says that understanding the previously arisen as the manner is the logic of manner, and expressing it in words is the logic of words. Secondly, there are five types of manner logic: that which accords with the speech of the Dharmakaya is the cause of unborn meaning, such as unborn nature or space; that which accords with the manner of the speech of Sambhogakaya is the cause of self-awareness and manifestation, such as the essence of non-conceptual self-luminous sun; that which accords with the manner of the speech of the Sambhogakaya is the cause of symbolic meaning, such as the image in a mirror that reveals obscurations; that which accords with the speech of the Vajrakaya is the cause of indivisible Vajra, such as the sound and emptiness inseparable rock; that which accords with the manner of the speech of the Nirmanakaya is the cause of expressive words, which makes everyone believe, like the Brahma's melodious voice. These causes, through these causes, for those whose faculties are extremely sharp, this very appearance and sound is symbolized, thereby establishing the manner of the five kayas. As it is said: For the minds endowed with the realization of the stages of the path, various things, mind, secret mantras, because they are metaphors and scriptures, they show the manner of Dharma, communicating like an expression, because it is the explanation of the essence, the logic is determined for the future meaning. So it is. Distinguishing and summarizing the logic of words. The first is the five manners themselves, expressed in words as the five realities. If summarized, it is divided into the cause of understanding the four kayas that cannot be used, and the cause of understanding the Nirmanakaya that can be used. The difference between the two is that because it is not directly spoken in words, it cannot be used; that which is directly expressed in words can be used. My lama said so. But I think that what directly points out the meaning is unusable, and what points out through the lineage of meaning is usable, so following the wishes of other wise people, I think well. As it is said: Although it is so, if summarized, there are two, four are not used, one is used, both ways can achieve meaning,
Chinese
是与诸位一致的缘故。如是说之故。第一，因无所用而有四种理解：理解意义的过失，未使用的理解的例子，以及舍弃傲慢。第一种是指对于根器敏锐者，法性的意义同时显现，不依赖于征相和分析。如是说：路径的分类，于彼如实安置，以如实言说的词语，如白色象征白色一样，象征超越思辨言说的彼性。如是。过失是：使用会导致分别念的产生，如是说：使用进入则为分别念的基础，目标进入则为执着的所缘，因执着所束缚故不得解脱。如是。例子是：如想看黄金而展示黄金本身一样。如是说：因此看黄金如黄金一样，因自性故不执着能作者和所作事，不寻求思辨分析和执着，仅以言说本身象征彼性。如是。辩论的驳斥有四种。第一，彼性不是分别念智慧的对境，因为无法分析。如果这样说，那么仅仅如此，疑惑的自在识不应执着于修习的对境。因为没有分别念。应如是说。如果说是所希望的，那么是相同的。如果说衡量者和所衡量物是清晰的，那么境和有境是清晰的。如果说凡是无法分析的就遍不是认识的对境，如眼识和声音一样，那么上面说没有分别念就遍不执着对境，如灭尽定一样。如果实际上是依靠分析的道路来理解，那么这就是智慧的顶峰。如是说：对于任何事物都没有分别念，因为对任何事物的显现都是分别念，所以分别念是最殊胜的，是无分析的至高境界。如是。又，理由是用后比量来象征，那么在这里显现又该做什么呢？不是的，意指显现象征的语言，是圣教的总结。又，对于未经分析的理解，需要条件还是不需要呢？是自性敏锐者的抬头，与分析相同。又，那个理由的反面，是具有所衡量物还是不具有呢？如果如第一种情况，那么与可以分析的没有差别。如果如第二种情况，那么黑茹嘎的声音不应进入。仅仅有所衡量物。